Deputy Labour leader had alleged ‘harassment’ and breach of privacy

Watson had complained about an article showing a form Watson circulated to attendees of his ‘Future Britain’ group meeting, which showed his ‘office mobile’ number.

The complaint cited sections five and seven of the IMPRESS code, alleging that the article constituted harassment – because Watson received a number of calls and messages from angry Labour members – and breach of privacy because of the number.

The SKWAWKBOX argued that Watson – as an elected MP and deputy leader of the Labour Party – should expect to be accountable to members but routinely blocks Twitter users who disagree with him and that the publication of a number described as an ‘office mobile’, could not be construed as a breach of privacy.

IMPRESS’ adjudication, published this morning, dismissed the complaint in all respects:

The conclusion of the report states:

The Harassment clause of the Code is intended to cover a pattern of behaviour involving intimidating, threatening or abusive journalistic and newsgathering activity. The Committee did not consider that the Publisher’s conduct nor the article as published went so far as to engage the Harassment Clause. Rather, as part of ordinary political discourse, it was legitimate for someone to contact a senior public figure and member of parliament to put forward their views. Furthermore, the sign-up form itself was an invitation for views and support of a political position. By merely encouraging readers to contact the Complainant, the Committee did not consider the Publisher went so far as to encourage readers to abuse, threaten or intimidate the Complainant. As a result, the Committee considered that in these circumstances the Publisher did not breach Code

…The Committee noted that the Complainant felt that the contact information provided on the form was private information, as he believed the information had not been widely circulated prior to the publication of the article. Furthermore, the Committee noted that the article referred to the form as being ‘leaked’, implying that the information had not previously been in the public domain. However, the sign-up form did not refer to the information on it as private or confidential. Instead, the contact number was referred to as an “office mobile”, which the Committee considered would be regarded as a public facing contact point by the ordinary reasonable person. Furthermore, the Committee understood that the sign-up form was circulated to other MPs by the Complainant in his capacity as a politician. The information was therefore not exchanged by the Complainant in a private capacity but rather in his capacity as a public figure. Therefore, the Committee did not consider, in this instance, that the Complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the published information and therefore there could be no breach of Clause

The SKWAWKBOX welcomes the IMPRESS decision. The full adjudication can be read here.

The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal orhere for a monthly donation via GoCardless. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

If you wish to reblog this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.

I would argue that the article I quoted is almost as relevant today as it was the day it was published but if you want to put forward an alternative view by having another of your little rants then that is of course entirely your choice..

Toffee, it’s perfectly possible to have a low opinion of Watson and be in favour of a confirmatory referendum. RH has made it clear that his opinion is exactly that.
How is failure to post a comment here a sign you disagree with what’s been said?
Anyway, I see TW’s failed complaint as a sign that he regards the Skwawkbox as a significant problem for him and takes it seriously. Excellent.

”How is failure to post a comment here a sign you disagree with what’s been said?”

Oh, it’s easy. They’d have been quick enough to comment if watson had been jibbed by impress over a (direct) brexit issue.

And isn’t it strange that people have noticed the pattern of them never appearing quite as keen to comment in condemnation of watson as they are to make calculated, sneering remarks – amongst their backhanded compliments – about Corbyn or the working class who put him there?

No telling us they think watson’s out of order in this matter, too – but why would he be?

Skwawkbox’s reports about party policy for brexit don’t tie in with their single agenda; watson’s trying to give them EXACTLY what they want, and their point blank refusal to condemn watson for his snide character flaws can be reasonably and safely interpreted as support for watson’s M.O. towards getting a 2nd referendum.

That’s a succinct summary of our situation. On the plus side, Tories are in a much worse state and our lost support is(cross fingers) more easily recoverable – if we have a working economy left by the end of this.

Yes, but you could just as easily say the same for the other two….Only more so in their case because they post to the (almost) exclusion of everything else.

As long as they keep spouting the same arld shite, I’ll be here, shouting spite.

‘Tourette’s kipper’ indeed. See below.

As for ‘dicky’ hayward…

Snide remarks about disability – Tick. Typical of the shithouse.

At least my disability doesn’t extend to being unable to grasp that 17 million is quite a sum more than 83% of 0.5 million labour members….You can even add your 16 milion or your 35% or what have ya. It’s STILL not a majority.

Tim, lots of politicians are like actors and lead singers – doing it for the applause. Politicians are the only ones trying to have their critics jailed though.
It’s a profession with more than its fair share of egotists.

Err… my remarks were intended as criticism only of politicians, nobody else – and only because their fragile egos can adversely affect whole populations.
We’re all egotists to some degree.
May would claim her sense of duty keeps her hanging around but it’s not that – it’s ego.

On PMQ’s today two points that define Labour and cheap and nasties
We say rich have increased their income by £50 thousand million, they say top earners are paying more tax, we should then respond so why are you giving them tax breaks and cutting support for poorest
Could also ask how much of the increase in income has gone offshore and ask them how much Russian money is pouring into Tory coffers

On PMQ’s
Youth unemployment reduced by 50% my arse
They have taken all 16 and 17 year olds out of the calculation, those guys cannot claim anymore,
Similar con trick with self employed, you no longer qualify fir any help whatsoever as you are assumed to earn 35 x minimum wage
So if you want to claim you have to close down your business
Not called cheap and nasties for nothing